Shipbucket

Glass houses mate, glass houses.

_________________

Jabba's Worklist

While the Iowa's are magnificent ships, their engineering plant just requires too much labor. A warship is useless unless it can be kept at sea. The Iowas are simply to expensive to man and keep under way.

This doesn't mean that we (The US) shouldn't build new armored warships. Something like the German Panzerschiffe. Smaller, diesel powered, small crew and enough armor to stop a tank round. That would be the same general thickness as the Panzerschiffe, but using modern Chobham armor over the turrets and magazines. Throw in an Aegis system to keep the ship killing missiles away and you would have a modern capital ship. Not cheap to build, but much less expensive to operate than the Iowas.

What would the armour give to such a ship that can justify the added tonnage and cost? Chobham armour is very expensive and extremely heavy so we're talking quite a bit of both.
Take note that you won't be able to armour any of your sensors, so any hit is likely to take you out of the fight. (Missiles and guns are of little use when you can't find your enemy)
Not to mention the fact that Chobham is unlikely to be able to stop the latest generations of anti ship missiles.
In my opinion you'd be better of using said money and displacement on better active defences which can stop said missiles before they hit you.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

This.

You can man five to six Burkes for the cost of manning an Iowa.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Shore bombardment in support of the marines. There are no active defenses that can reliably engage a 155mm round fired from a battery on shore. Fire support requires that you stay close in and wait for the call. Unfortunately that means staying within the potential rage of the other guys guns. That means if the other guy is willing to trade an artillery battery to put some hits on your ship he is probably going to be able to do it. With armor you can absorb the hit and counter battery him into extinction.

As for anti ship missiles that is why you need to have the Aegis system. The ship is not however designed for ship vs ship as a primary roll. If the other guy's navy is shooting missiles at you the guys commanding the Burkes, and Nimitz class farther off shore need to get their pay docked. The armored ship is a specialist. It is a sea mobile artillery battery for the Marines.

As to the high cost of the Chobham, there would have to be a trade off between the cost of the Chobham and the cost of building a hull large enough to carry an equivalent protective level of cheaper, but much more massive, conventional armor. With the Chobham your armor is expensive but you save on hull size and engineering plant. Perhaps make the ship a monitor with a single four gun turret (four gun being the standard battery size for the marines) and armor only the turret and barbette with Chobham and use cheaper armor for the belt and deck.

_________________

Jabba's Worklist

Sure there is. C-RAM, Iron Dome, Sea Wolf just to name a few.
Even if there weren't any, your armour wouldn't help you since it can't protect your electronics, without which you can't fire back.
Why? Aren't you carrying bigger guns than he does? If there's enemy artillery close enough to the shore to threaten you then you won't be able to land marines in the first place. If there's no marines being threatened then you have time to wait for an air strike.
Not without your radars or radios you don't.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

The snarky answer would be that that is true of any ship, so why build them at all. A better answer is that you would data link to a UAV or another ship with working sensors. Or have redundant sensor capabilities. Most hits, unless aimed with a antiradiation warhead, don't actually knock out the sensors themselves. Stark, Roberts, Cole, all had their sensors survive the hits that crippled them. The problem was that they lost their engineering spaces so that while the antennas were working just fine, they couldn't get power to them. If you lose your antennas there are still options. If you lose engineering you are dead in the water. If you are already in range of enemy shore batteries you are just plain dead.

So armor the engineering spaces. If you have power you can call for someone else to guide your fire, or bring up the backups. If all else fails you can at least run away to get the antennas repaired.

Name one ship since the second world war that was taken out of battle due to having its electronics knocked out. I can point to several that were taken out due to having their engineering spaces flooded or burned. HMS Sheffield, though she had her radar turned off at the time of the hit, was not hit anyplace near her antennas. I have already mentioned USS Stark, USS Cole, and USS Roberts, all engineering casualties with undamaged sensors.
\
Note ship listing, burning, but with antennas standing there just fine

USS Liberty, shot to pieces by aircraft and surface ships, torpedoed, burned and the radar mast is doing just fine.

The one case of sensor lost I can recall is from WWII when the South Dakota lost her radar at the battle of Guadalcanal. However; that was not because her sensors were shot away, it was because her generators were put out of action due to the shock of her own guns firing.

If loss of sensors is such a be all to end all, give one example where it has happened.

Snarky? Yes. Correct? Not so much.
It is however the reason why armour was abandoned.
Stark was hit by two contact fuzed exocets, the Roberts struck a mine, and the Cole was hit by a suicide bomb. Neither of these are air bursting, which is what a coastal battery would use.
Let's say a battery of 155mm guns opens up on you. Depending on who you're dealing with that can mean anywhere between four and fifteen guns. Let's also assume it takes about a minute for you to neutralise them (Notice inbound shells, backtrack, acquire target, slew guns, time of flight)
Most 155mm guns can manage about five rounds per minute in short bursts, so you're looking at as much as 75 airbursting shells.
If you're unlucky and they have something akin to the Archer which can pour out 10 rpms you're looking at twice that.
In other words, plenty to cut up every single piece of unprotected equipment.
Indeed, but those options amounts to choosing which way you'll retreat. If anything this illustrates why you shouldn't move into 155mm range of the shore before it has been sanitized.

Name one ship that has been engaged by a shore battery that had access to air bursting shells since.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.